Loading High Court cases…
601 orders · Page 3 of 13
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The Court found that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Applying the law laid down in previous judgments (Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu), the Court ruled that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B are contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with the order dated 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The respondents were granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The specific notice challenged in this petition, dated 28.03.2024, and all consequential proceedings were also set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the observations and order would apply mutatis mutandis to the present case.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board under Sections 119 and 120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The Court found that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to taxpayers. Circulars and instructions can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessments as per Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act and were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The writ petition was allowed in terms of the observations and order, with the notice dated 15.04.2024 and consequential proceedings being set aside.
The High Court held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, are contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court agreed with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench that circulars or instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B(7) & (8), authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The respondents were granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act. The operative direction was to set aside the notice dated 30.03.2024 and all consequential proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that faceless assessment procedures mandated by statute cannot be bypassed by administrative instructions or by issuing notices without adhering to the prescribed scheme.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The court found that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees and creating confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Following the precedents set in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, the court determined that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessments as envisaged under Section 144B were contrary to the Act. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with the order dated 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure. The specific notice dated 20.04.2024 and consequential proceedings in the present case were also set aside. The court allowed the writ petition in terms of the aforementioned observations and order.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning provided by the appellant-revenue was that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals, as per CBDT Circulars. The Tribunal accepted this submission and granted liberty to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. The main case having been dismissed, any pending C.M. Application was also disposed of. The Tribunal did not decide any substantive issue on merits regarding the income tax assessment. The ratio decidendi is that appeals can be withdrawn by the revenue if the tax effect falls below the prescribed monetary limits, with liberty to seek revival under certain circumstances.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. Authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were found to be contrary to the Act. The specific notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned notices and proceedings. The issue of whether the revenue could follow the procedure if advised was left open for future action.
The High Court held that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting the assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961, and therefore without jurisdiction. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. The reasoning was that instructions by the Board could not override statutory provisions or make them otiose, and legislative enactments having financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court stated that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship and confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, the notices dated 27.03.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with all consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised. The writ petition was allowed.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court, following its own previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The Court found that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees, and that instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act were found to be contrary to the Act. The Court set aside the notices and consequential proceedings for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The Court allowed the writ petition in terms of its previous orders.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The Court found that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to taxpayers. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Therefore, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act. The Court set aside the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023, for want of jurisdiction. The respondents were granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure. The specific notice dated 28.03.2024 issued by the JAO under Section 148 was also set aside.
The High Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. Based on the consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 31.03.2023, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning is based on the agreement of the parties to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to extend the benefit of a prior judgment to a subsequent case, the court will grant such relief. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Order issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 12, 2024, and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, dated March 12, 2024, along with consequential proceedings. The Court reiterated its finding from Jasjit Singh (supra) that circulars or instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court held that by exercising powers under Sections 119, 120, and 144B(7 & 8) of the Act, authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued under Section 148 and proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned order and notice.
The High Court held that the ITAT had correctly examined the scope of Section 158-BB of the Income Tax Act, considering both materials found during the search and other information available to the Assessing Officer relatable to such evidence. The court also found that the Revenue's appeal did not raise any substantial question of law.
The High Court held that the writ petition was premature because no order had been passed by the respondent authorities to which a reply had been filed. The Court reasoned that even if an order were to be passed in the future, the petitioner would have the recourse of challenging it before the appropriate appellate forum. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. No specific issue was left undecided, as the dismissal was based on the preliminary ground of prematurity. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. Authorities cannot use powers under Sections 119 and 120, as well as Section 144B(7 & 8), to circumvent legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion for taxpayers. Instructions and circulars are meant to supplement statutory provisions, not to supersede them. Therefore, the court found no reason to deviate from the view taken by a Coordinate Bench in similar cases. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessments under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act and were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The writ petition was allowed, and the interim order merged with the final order.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The Court found that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Following the precedent set in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, the Court ruled that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessments as per Section 144B are contrary to the Act. Consequently, the notices and proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The respondents-revenue were granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. The writ petition was allowed in terms of the aforesaid discussion.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120, as well as Section 144B(7 & 8), authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act, 1961, and were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The operative direction was to set aside the notice dated 27.03.2024 and consequential proceedings, allowing the writ petition in terms of the cited judgments.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The Court found that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Applying the law laid down in previous judgments (Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu), the Court found that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings, initiated without conducting faceless assessments under Section 144B, were contrary to the Act. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The respondents-revenue were granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The present writ petition was allowed in similar terms, setting aside the notice dated 25.04.2023 and consequential proceedings.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The Court found that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Consequently, notices issued under Section 148 of the Act and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act. The Court set aside the notices and proceedings for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if advised. The writ petition was allowed.
The High Court held that instructions by the Board could not override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments must be followed strictly. The Court found that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8) of the Act, the authorities could not usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions from the Board can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961, and were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised. The Court allowed the writ petition and stated that the interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with this order.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. The reasoning was based on the consistent non-appearance of the appellant's counsel for multiple dates, including the current date. The court observed that no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The Tribunal held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Therefore, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the notices dated 24.03.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with the consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was at liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The reasoning was based on the consistent absence of the appellant's counsel on multiple hearing dates, including the present one. The Court noted that no one appeared on behalf of the appellant even today, and for the last three dates, the learned counsel for the appellant had not been present. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that persistent non-appearance by the appellant or their counsel leads to the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court allowed the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn, following the revised monetary limits stipulated in the CBDT circular.
The High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The reasoning was based on the fact that for the last three dates, no one had appeared on behalf of the appellant, and even on the current date, the learned counsel for the appellant was not present. The court noted the presence of the revenue's counsel. The ratio decidendi is that persistent non-appearance by the appellant or their counsel, despite opportunities, leads to the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the revised monetary limits and litigation management policy.
The High Court held that the ITAT and CIT(A) were correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,70,34,500/-. The court found that the total purchase amount was Rs. 5,03,28,905/-, and the AO's addition was limited to Rs. 3,59,53,000/- which remained unexplained. However, the court noted that the AO's statement was self-contradictory. The transactions with M/s Feddrex Sales Corpn. and M/s Adbros Electrotech were confirmed by these companies in their own returns and accepted by the AO. The ITAT rightly confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion. Regarding the colourable device and bogus transactions, the court found no bogus transaction or colourable device. The ITAT's finding that the transactions shown in the books of the assessee were duly entered and confirmed by the concerned companies was accepted. The AO's approach in holding the same as bogus was considered perverse. The issue of no actual payment for handloom items was a factual matter already examined by the CIT(A) and ITAT, and no perversity was found in their conclusions. Therefore, all questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee.
The High Court allowed the prayer of the counsel for the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeal. The Court noted that Circular No. 5/2024 dated 17.09.2024 has been issued by the CBDT to manage litigation by enhancing the monetary limits for filing appeals. The revised limits are Rs. 60 lakh for appeals before the ITAT, Rs. 2 crore before the High Court, and Rs. 5 crore before the Supreme Court. These limits are applicable to all cases, including those relating to TDS/TCS, with certain exceptions. The Court found that the present appeal did not fall within any of the exceptions to the circular. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications were also disposed of accordingly.
The High Court, following its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged by Section 144B, are contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court reiterated its view that circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete, and legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148, and the subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting a faceless assessment, were without jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 28.08.2024 and all consequential proceedings were set aside. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court, following its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, held that instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court reiterated that circulars and instructions can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation, not usurp legal provisions for the convenience of authorities or cause hardship and confusion to assessees. Consequently, the Court found the notice dated 13.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings, including those initiated under Section 144B, to be without jurisdiction and contrary to the Act. The Court set aside the impugned notice and all subsequent proceedings. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, if so advised. The interim orders were merged with the final order.
The High Court found that the power to condone the delay in filing the audit report is available with the department. The Court held that the audit report, once filed on record, ought to be considered and should not be ignored. The Court reasoned that a delay of 30 days in filing the audit report for assessment years 2019-2020, 2020-21, and 2021-22 should not preclude condonation. Consequently, the Court decided to condone the delay and directed that the audit report be taken on record. The order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the respondent was set aside, and the respondent was directed to pass a fresh order on merits. The ratio decidendi is that a reasonable delay in filing an audit report, especially when the report is otherwise on record, should be condoned by the tax authorities, and the power to condone such delays should be exercised liberally.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. The reasoning was that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court emphasized that the JAO's notices and orders allowing discretionary powers to usurp legal provisions for their convenience cause hardship and confusion. Therefore, the notice dated 22.03.2024 and all consequential proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The Tribunal noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) regarding Circular No. 5/2024, which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals by the department before the ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court to manage litigation. The revised limits are Rs. 60 lakh for the ITAT, Rs. 2 crore for the High Court, and Rs. 5 crore for the Supreme Court. The circular also indicated that appeals pending before these authorities may have been directed to be withdrawn. The appellant's counsel relied on this circular and stated that the case did not fall within any exception clause. Consequently, the appellant prayed for the withdrawal of the present appeal. The Tribunal accepted the prayer of the counsel for the appellant. The appeal was accordingly allowed to be withdrawn and stood dismissed as withdrawn. Any pending applications were also disposed of accordingly.
The High Court directed the Assessing Officer to consider and pass orders for AY 1992-93 in light of the earlier order passed for AY 1993-94.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court agreed with the view taken by coordinate benches, stating that instructions by the Board (referring to Section 119 and 120) could not override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court reasoned that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion. Therefore, notices dated 29.03.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act. The ratio is that faceless assessment procedures mandated by statute must be followed, and administrative instructions or actions that deviate from these statutory mandates are invalid.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. The reasoning was that instructions by the Board (under Section 119) cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. The Court held that assessment authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid implementation. Therefore, assessment proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessments as envisaged by Section 144B were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. The interim order was merged with the present order.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged by Section 144B of the Act, were contrary to the provisions of the Act and therefore without jurisdiction. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. The reasoning was that instructions by the Board (referring to Section 119 and 120) could not override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court emphasized that instructions can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation, not usurp legal provisions or cause hardship. Consequently, the notices dated 28.08.2024, 16.03.2023, 23.03.2024, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. The writ petition was allowed.
The High Court allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the Revenue's counsel submitted that the appeal was being withdrawn in terms of CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. This circular revises the monetary limits for filing appeals by the department. The revised limit for appeals before the High Court is Rs. 2 crore. The Revenue argued that the present appeal, filed after the effective date of the circular, did not fall within the exception clauses of Circular No. 5/2024. Consequently, the Revenue prayed for withdrawal. The Court found merit in this submission and allowed the prayer, dismissing the appeal as withdrawn. All pending applications were also disposed of accordingly. The Court did not decide the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal, in light of the submissions made by the appellant's counsel, allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The reasoning was based on the appellant's contention that the case did not fall within any exceptions to CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, which revised monetary limits for filing appeals. The circular, effective from its issuance date, mandates that appeals/SLPs to be filed before the Supreme Court, High Court, and ITAT shall adhere to these new limits. Consequently, appeals pending before these authorities, where a decision to appeal/file SLP was taken without regard to tax effect, may have been directed to be withdrawn. The Tribunal found no exception applicable to the present case. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The court noted that the appellant's counsel relied on the circular and stated that the case did not fall within any exceptions, thus praying for withdrawal.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 144B, conducted without a faceless assessment, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The court agreed with the view taken by coordinate benches, stating that circulars or instructions from the Board cannot override statutory provisions or be issued to make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The court observed that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience or satisfaction, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. The court found the notices dated 31.08.2024, 23.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, and 30.03.2023, along with the order dated 30.03.2023, to be without jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly if advised. The ratio decidendi is that faceless assessment provisions are mandatory, and deviations without statutory backing are invalid, rendering such proceedings void for want of jurisdiction. The court allowed the writ petition.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent assessment proceedings initiated without conducting the assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and accordingly set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench, which held that circulars or instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications are to be mandatorily followed. The Court found that the authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. The Court stated that instructions and circulars can be issued only for supplementing statutory provisions and for their implementation. Therefore, the notice dated 29.08.2024 and all consequential proceedings were set aside. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged by Section 144B of the Act, are contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. The reasoning was that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions, and faceless assessment is a statutory requirement. The authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience. The Court found that the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2024, along with the notice dated 14.03.2024 issued under Section 148, were issued for want of jurisdiction. The operative direction was to set aside these notices and consequential proceedings. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The writ petition was allowed.
The High Court held that the ITAT should not have dismissed the appeal on the ground of low tax effect if the issue involved fell within the exceptions provided in Circular No. 5/2024. The Court found that the issue before the ITAT was indeed covered by the exceptions as laid down in clause 3A of Circular No. 5/2024, which relates to provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the High Court set aside the orders passed by the ITAT and remanded the matter back to the ITAT with a direction to decide the appeal on its merits. The Court also stipulated that the ITAT shall fix a particular date for hearing, and both parties will be given a fair opportunity to present their case.
The High Court held that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated thereafter, without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court agreed with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench that circulars or instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. The specific notice dated 16.04.2024 issued by the JAO under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings were also set aside. The ratio is that faceless assessment procedures mandated by statute cannot be circumvented by administrative instructions or by bypassing the prescribed procedure.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's order, noting that the issue was settled by the Supreme Court in Bharti Cellular Limited. The Supreme Court held that Section 194H is not applicable to such discounts.
The High Court held that the writ petition was infructuous. The Court noted that the refund of Rs. 83,16,370/- along with interest of Rs. 82,403/- under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had already been issued to the assessee on 06.08.2021 and credited on 27.08.2021. Furthermore, in response to the assessee's rectification application for short grant of interest, an order dated 14.02.2024 was passed granting additional interest of Rs. 15,23,232/- under Section 244A. Given these actions by the Revenue, the Court found no further adjudication was required in the present petition. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed as having been rendered infructuous, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order rejecting the waiver of interest was unsustainable because it was based on a Supreme Court judgment (Assam Cooperative Apex Marketing Society Limited) that has since been overruled. The Tribunal noted that as of the present, it is settled law that cooperative societies like the petitioner are entitled to exemption from tax. Therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to deposit advance tax. Consequently, the rejection of the waiver of interest under Sections 234-B and 234-C for assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99 was wrongful. The Tribunal quashed and set aside the order dated 15.07.2002, holding that the petitioner society is entitled to claim the waiver of interest for the specified period. The ratio decidendi is that if the basis for disallowing a deduction and charging interest is an overruled judgment, the waiver of interest should be granted, especially when subsequent settled law confirms the assessee's entitlement to the deduction.
The High Court allowed the Revenue's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.
The judgment excerpt does not contain any findings or reasoning by the High Court on any specific issues. Therefore, it is not possible to determine what the Tribunal decided, the reasoning that led to it, or the ratio decidendi. No operative directions, such as remand or deletion, are mentioned, and no issues were expressly left undecided within this text. The judgment is a brief order noting the date of decision and the presence of counsel.